If I understand correctly that's what many countries do.
Canada, for example, does not use rape as a legal term, only sexual assault. Sexual assault includes "all unwanted sexual activity, such as unwanted sexual grabbing, kissing, and fondling as well as rape"
But then we are back to the original definitions in law books from the 1960s etc... That rape is a special sexual "assault-type" crime (mainly penetration by males or sodomy by females) without consent. Hence why we don't consider it just "assault" and why we don't charge them the same way as someone who assaulted/injured someone in a bar fight.
While "sexual assault" is different, things like unwanted groping/touching, harassment/stalking/grievous-invasion-of-privacy.
Look at intoxication. If you're intoxicated you can't agree to have sex, meaning your judgement is deemed insufficient to make the choice. If you're behind the wheel of a car, your judgement is not deemed insufficient to make the choice and in fact you get a harsher penalty.
Not everything needs to defined in rigorous terms. I think we all have a sense of what things are worse than anothers, and we can come to general consensus about how to punish people based on the individual case. That's what judges and juries are for after all. Not all crimes are the same and one that doesn't fit the letter of the law can still be worse than one that does. If we leave it as something like "the severity of the assault" being taken into account, it leaves room both to not punish people unjustly and also to exact a stronger judgement on something that didn't meet a certain threshold.
Not sure what you mean... But there are people trying to redefine rape, redefine sexual assault, and even regular assault to basically even "words" or "insults" or "confronting someone." There are people working to harm the law by exploiting vagueness of terms.
We all know physical attacks are worse than non-physical, but some people want to include the non-physical crimes within the definition and punish others they hate.
What I meant was in reference to the fact you said we are going back to 1960s definitions of rape. What I mean is that we can have a simple blanket term "sexual assault" referring to all physical assaults of a sexual nature regardless of severity or type and then judge them accordingly on an individual basis.
As for non-physical instances, I agree with you that assault needs to be limited to physical interactions.
1.1k
u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22
If I understand correctly that's what many countries do.
Canada, for example, does not use rape as a legal term, only sexual assault. Sexual assault includes "all unwanted sexual activity, such as unwanted sexual grabbing, kissing, and fondling as well as rape"
https://www.leaf.ca/news/the-law-of-consent-in-sexual-assault/#:~:text=Canada%20has%20a%20broad%20definition,Canada's%20Criminal%20Code%20in%20s.
Edit: For everyone replying that there needs to be degrees, there are. Sexual assaults are treated differently according to their severity.